Moderation Suspension

[Squamish]

Nobody is expecting new users to look at previous punishments. That's not my point. That's not anyone's point. The point is simple: there is an established precedent which HO has to follow. They did that, and gave their reasoning as to why.

So... why is there a problem?

While I think the rule is silly, I can't call this unfair because it's being applied entirely fairly. I don't think there should have been a suspension last time either, but I understood why it happened.

It also doesn't matter what Pens thinks is valid reasoning, since he didn't write the rule. If I think I have valid reasoning to steal bread from a market to feed my starving child, that doesn't make it valid reasoning. What is valid is defined by the league.

Now that this issue is being discussed for the second time, maybe the rule will be clarified. By all means, press for that. But retroactively changing a decision based on a future rule amendment is even worse than if they'd not punished Pens at all for this infraction, imo.

I'm just saying that "what is valid is defined by the league" is only fine if it's actually defined. Precedent is all well and good, but if it's not in the rulebook, no one is going to know it's a thing, so it's unreasonable to hold someone to a standard they don't know is the standard. In an instance where precedent is violated but a rule isn't outright broken, what I would do (independently of what the league would do, or has done) is explain to the person why what they've done violates precedent, put it in the rulebook for future times, and let that one go since it's not in the rulebook (or is, but isn't clear). This is the case (again, just in my opinion) regardless of the nature of the infraction - and yes, it can lead to people getting away with some big things, if it's not clear.

Obviously they have chosen to do it differently, and that's fine, just speaking my mind here.

Independently of this discussion: can you link me to the precedent? I'd like to read up on it.